Seems bad for Snowflake? Iceberg is a big part of Snowflake's data lake offering, and I assumed it was a Snowflake-originated OSS project until this announcement (all Snowflake products have snow related names).
508 karma · joined December 24, 2013
But that's fine! It has only existed for around a year in public preview, and appears to be improving quickly. My issue was with how aggressively Snowflake sales tried to push it as a production-ready ML platform. Whenever I asked questions about version control/CI, model versioning/ops, package managers, etc. the sales engineers and data scientists consistently oversold the product.
The problem is that just like violent crime rates don't fully explain feelings of safety, things that make one feel unsafe don't fully explain all violent crime. Since Bob Lee's murder did not seem to be a result of either drug-induced psychosis or a mugging gone wrong, Joe made the correct call that the murder was likely unrelated to either of those issues.
That all being said, it appears that you have issues with him based on unrelated reporting on an issue you seem to care deeply about. A good of a time as any to examine any potential biases you might have when receiving new information so you don't accidentally embarrass yourself on Twitter!
Mission Local seems to serve their local bureaucratic masters over the basic public safety needs of the people. [0]
This is gaslighting. You should be ashamed. [1]
In this case they are “independent” of a sort [2]
In all fairness, he did retweet this article a couple hours ago.
[0] https://twitter.com/garrytan/status/1644520924828540929?s=20
[1] https://twitter.com/garrytan/status/1644510807060021249?s=20
[2] https://twitter.com/garrytan/status/1644535178856124418?s=20
> Your entire statement to me seems driven by emotion
> Sorry, but the whole comment reeks of luxury beliefs.
C'mon man. You don't know the person you are responding to and included multiple personal attacks in your response. There's a way to make your argument without making the person you are responding to your own personal hate-object.
direct link to the interview: https://stratechery.com/2022/an-interview-with-coinbase-foun...
To use your metaphor, a person who it would be a crime to sell anything to went to a gun vending machine to buy a gun. Given the nature of gun vending machines, it would be difficult, but not impossible for the vending machine company to prevent this scenario. However, in terms of assessing whether a legal violation occurred, it doesn't matter that the item the person bought was a gun, if the gun was then used to commit a crime, or if the item was instead a rubber band or a brown paper bag, or if the gun vending machine company designed the gun/band/bag or produced the gun/band/bag.
[0] Proxy contract: https://etherscan.io/address/0xd90e2f925da726b50c4ed8d0fb90a...
[1] sanctioned address using Proxy contract: https://etherscan.io/address/0x4bf2c2956942b2dd40517bce42391...
* DHTs are "invented" at Berkeley/MIT. Online storage is too expensive for most end users, so the target market is helping large companies index data in their filesystems.
* A bunch of content distribution protocols get built on top of the concept, the most popular being Bittorrent. Torrent protocols run into issues with the free rider problem, resulting in slow downloads. Meanwhile, storage on the web is becoming cheaper and cheaper.
* To solve the free rider problem, IPFS was created. A brilliant incentive structure was created so that asset hosting no longer relied on the benevolence torrent seeders. Meanwhile, companies like Cloudflare, Mega, Google and Amazon make online storage essentially free.
* Cloudflare starts hosting IPFS assets for free. Decentralized storage still exists, but is still slow in comparison and, in IPFS's case, is more expensive than free, so people only use IPFS addresses to download assets from large, centralized services.
* IPFS is mostly used as a distributed network of hashed addresses that can be used to look up data in a large company's filesystem.
Did allowing hate speech make 8chan/Voat friendlier? There are plenty of unfriendly communities that lack overt racism/fatphobia, but I can't think of any friendly ones that do.
EIP-2981 is the draft protocol-level NFT royalty implementation, but you will note that it's opt-in and NFT marketplaces do not need to respect it (although theoretically they could be blacklisted/sued). It explicitly outlines why a non opt-in implementation wouldn't work:
> It is impossible to know which NFT transfers are the result of sales, and which are merely wallets moving or consolidating their NFTs. Therefore, we cannot force every transferFrom() call to involve a royalty payment, as not every transfer is a sale that would require such payment. We believe the NFT marketplace ecosystem will voluntarily implement this royalty payment standard to provide ongoing funding for artists and other creators, and NFT buyers will assess the royalty payment as a factor when making NFT purchasing decisions. [0]
The only non opt-in royalty percentage implementation I know of is Euler Beats, but that royalty percentage only applies to printing new NFTs through their bonding curve. If you bought an Euler Beat print through a third party, you could simply use the safeTransferFrom function and avoid royalties entirely.
As someone pointed out in this thread, this arrangement is very common for high end art already, since it helps keep incentives aligned between collectors and the artists.
[0] https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2981#universal-royalty-pa...
The Memphis-esque style is definitely having a moment. You'll notice that the Chillwave aesthetic borrowed a ton of visual cues as well.
I think "trust CEOs" is significantly less supported by Edelman's data than "reduce press freedom, emulate China," but I'm just a random internet commentator, not a high quality journalist like Felix Salmon.
I'd also note that the 3% drop also appears to be barely outside the survey's margin of error (survey population size: n=1,150).
[0] Media trust chart is on page 49 https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2021-0...
> On his resume, Lissack said he’d been a visiting research professor at George Washington University. When The Verge reached out to the school to confirm, a media relations specialist said he’d checked with multiple groups but could not verify Lissack’s employment. Lissack forwarded an email from a professor at the school, who said he’d been a “guest lecturer.”
> In January, a PhD student at the University of Washington tweeted parts of the article on Twitter. Lissack then posted her diversity statement where she spoke about her struggles with mental illness. “[The student] acknowledges her mental illness here,” he wrote. “Much better to disengage Even better would be for her to get help.”
> Lissack also contacted a woman who’d been collecting screenshots of his activity on Twitter. “Karma is not a nice lady,” he wrote. “You have been warned. She is very patient and highly effective.” Lissack emailed the woman’s husband to say that his patience had ended.
> On March 1st, Jeff Dean finally spoke out about Lissack’s behavior. “I (and Google) have no connection to Michael Lissack,” he wrote on Twitter. “I have seen enough disturbing reports of this sort of behavior that I have emailed him and asked him to cease contacting people who don’t want to be contacted. This kind of behavior has no place in scientific discourse.”
A poll released by the largest PR firm in the world[0], famous for their work with Walmart, GEO Group, Keystone XL, etc.
Why would the creators of "Working Families for Walmart" ever try to manufacture consent? One wonders.
> In messages obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Wayn told employees last year that he wanted to suspend some of the white supremacists and neo-Nazis who streamed on his site. But, he added, “if today we ban everyone controversial on DLive, the difficulties we will encounter on the growth will be 10x more than having them.”
> The strategy, Mr. Wayn said, was to “tolerate” them while amassing more legitimate video game players who would eventually “dilute” the right-wing community.[0]
Parler isn't run by "extremely principled libertarians," Parler just wants to get its foot in the door. And when taking on a dominant, well-funded incumbent, few users is perhaps better than no users.
It seems to have worked out for Reddit.
[0]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/technology/dlive-capitol-...
Shows up for me: https://www.google.com/search?q=parler
If they didn't want to get banned from the app stores, they should've at least tried to follow the TOS. There is a subreddit dedicated to cataloguing all the death threats on the app, many of which are still up today: https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/top/?t=month.
Reddit, Facebook and Twitter have entire content moderation teams for this sorta thing. Why should there be a double standard for conservative social media sites?
Facebook and Twitter are older than push notifications. SMS and email are pretty obvious replacements with little functional difference.
> Let's not kid ourselves. People rarely use the browser for something they really like on mobile if there is a native app. The experience is very different.
Sure, but you are pretty clearly moving the goalposts. Is it any more difficult to enter "news.ycombinator.com" into a mobile web browser than it is to download a mobile client?
Hence the weird dual screen of protesters breaking through windows/protesters staying within the cordons. They weren't part of the same cohort.
I mean, Parler is a CRUD app. You are posting a comment on another CRUD app that doesn't even have an official mobile app client!
"We find that the ban worked for Reddit. More accounts than expected discontinued using the site; those that stayed drastically decreased their hate speech usage-by at least 80%. Though many subreddits saw an influx of r/fatpeoplehate and r/C******n "migrants," those subreddits saw no significant changes in hate speech usage"[0].
I expect if Parler et. al. took similar stances against hate speech and open calls to violence, they would see similar results.
> Without a clear understanding of how a problem came to be, how can it be fixed?
You can't test a treatment without an intervention.
edit: fixed asterisks.
From the linked source:
North Korea has the world's highest rate of slavery, with about one in 10 people enslaved, followed by Eritrea (9.3%) Burundi (4%), Central African Republic (2.2%), Afghanistan (2.2%), Mauritania (2.1%), South Sudan (2%), Pakistan (1.7%), Cambodia (1.7%) and Iran (1.6%).
In retrospect, I should've said "violent conflict OR extreme poverty"
I'm a bit confused by the figurative language used here. Did you have a specific example of this, or is this a hypothetical? I think this type of thinking has its, but I think it's important to contextualize it. For example, you can say that a gambling addict gambles against their will, but I wouldn't say that they are enslaved to gambling institutions (unless I was purposely being hyperbolic). But I agree that many systems of slavery had a degree of self-regulation among the enslaved.
> Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your point.
My framework is this: violence is a necessary part of slavery, because to a certain extent enslavement requires the enslaved to choose between continued slavery or extreme violence/death. If you remove state violence from the equation, slavery still usually exists, and often flourishes due to the lack of a countervailing force. In "top-down" situations, where a system of slavery has implicit or explicit state support, the state doesn't have to explicitly enact the violence itself, it can simply declare a certain segment of the population "extra-judicial.
I think authoritarian, low violence states like Singapore have numerous human rights issues, but I wouldn't go so far as saying that the entire body politic is enslaved.
I intuitively get the point you are trying to make (sovereignty, "government has a monopoly on violence," yadda yadda), but I don't think it reflects the real, both contemporary and historical, systems of slavery.
Chattel slavery in the antebellum South's relied on extrajudicial violence. International sex trafficking is inherently violent. Modern slavery most often occurs in areas with widespread, violent conflict. Why should we be worried about "benevolent AI overlords" going rogue when historically civilizations with high percentages of unfree people were extremely violent?